.ml is full of tankies. Also, nothing in open-source principles say that to my knowledge. Am I not allowed to have beliefs not explicitly defined by the OSI?
The OSI’s definition of open-source software is the de facto definition used by most people, and for most of the remaining people that don’t, they (mistakenly, because they define “free” software, not “open-source”) defer to the FSF’s defintion of free software.
So yes, you should be explicitly noting that what you define as “open” has nothing at all to do with the far-and-away most widely used definition(s) of “open-source”.
Yes, and I said I want open-source to be open. As in not just open-source, but also open to all. That is my personal moral value, and I advocate for that. What the OSI supports has nothing to do with that.
I want a lot of things too, but what I want most of all is to live in a society governed by the rule of law. There are no absolute rights - limiting the freedoms of people who are complicit in crimes or enable them is how we protect the rights of everyone else. Simple as.
The limitations didn’t target a nationality, they targetted sanctioned entities. And you know this because it has been made clear throughout this thread, including in numerous replies to your own comments. So you are demonstrably and obviously disingenious, not engaging in good faith or have yourself been misled. This behavior logically leads people to the conclusion that you are either being deliberately manipulative or you are confused and have been deliberately manipulated. Sadly, the end result is the same in both cases and regardless of your intention.
I wish you the best. We should all be a lot more dedicated to intellectual honesty.
And you know this because it has been made clear throughout this thread,
As I said, everyone is basing this on one post on Mastadon, I have no clue where that person got that information, if he is trustworthy, if he speaks for the LF/Kernel team, or what.
.ml is full of tankies. Also, nothing in open-source principles say that to my knowledge. Am I not allowed to have beliefs not explicitly defined by the OSI?
The OSI’s definition of open-source software is the de facto definition used by most people, and for most of the remaining people that don’t, they (mistakenly, because they define “free” software, not “open-source”) defer to the FSF’s defintion of free software.
So yes, you should be explicitly noting that what you define as “open” has nothing at all to do with the far-and-away most widely used definition(s) of “open-source”.
Yes, and I said I want open-source to be open. As in not just open-source, but also open to all. That is my personal moral value, and I advocate for that. What the OSI supports has nothing to do with that.
I want a lot of things too, but what I want most of all is to live in a society governed by the rule of law. There are no absolute rights - limiting the freedoms of people who are complicit in crimes or enable them is how we protect the rights of everyone else. Simple as.
Limiting the freedoms of innocent people who happen to live in a country doesn’t protect the rights of others.
The limitations didn’t target a nationality, they targetted sanctioned entities. And you know this because it has been made clear throughout this thread, including in numerous replies to your own comments. So you are demonstrably and obviously disingenious, not engaging in good faith or have yourself been misled. This behavior logically leads people to the conclusion that you are either being deliberately manipulative or you are confused and have been deliberately manipulated. Sadly, the end result is the same in both cases and regardless of your intention.
I wish you the best. We should all be a lot more dedicated to intellectual honesty.
As I said, everyone is basing this on one post on Mastadon, I have no clue where that person got that information, if he is trustworthy, if he speaks for the LF/Kernel team, or what.